Butte semi-weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1886-1890, 1887-11-19
FOR WHICH, THANKS.
Sparks Anticipates the Grand Bounce
and Resigns.
He Empties the Walls OF His Wrath on
Secretary Lamar
In 4 Letter to the President Showing
Up the Secretary's Venality.

In . Letter to the President Showing
Up the Secretary's Venality.
A War Of Rates Among the Express
Companies Imminent.
The Crown Princes Throat Getting
Worse-Tracheotomy Inevitable.
WASHINGTON, November 15.-Land Com
missioner Sparks this afternoon personally
delivered to the President the following
letter, defending his course in the Chicago,
St. Paul. Minneapolis & Omaha Rail~ ay
land grant case, and formally resigned his
Office:
GENERAL LAND OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D.
e., November 15.-To the President-The
honorable Secretary of the Interior advises
me by letter dated the 11th instant, in
effect, that he should on that date present
to you the alternative of selecting new
Secretary OF Interior or a new Commis-
sioner OF the General Land Office. Under
authority vested in the Commissioner by
the laws. I had, previous to September,
1887. made adjustments OF certain rail-
road land grants, two OF which, known as
the Omaha cases. l had been specially
directed by the Secretary to re.
port. On October 8, 1887, two de-
cisions OF the Secretary were rendered in
the Omaha case non-concurring in my ad-
justments and overruling the authority on
which they we're based. He directed me at
the same time to cause the grants to be ad-
lust ed IN conformity with said decisions.
I now infer from his published letter that
these decisions were not approved by the
official law adviser for the Department OF
INC Interior. The point at issue related to
the claim of the railroad companies to
INDEMNITY FOR LANDS
that under railroad granting acts were re-
served from the operation OF those acts by
the express terms OF the statutes. Pre-
vious to 1875, lands that had been re-
served by the Government for Indian and
other purposes had been patented or certi-
fed to the companies both as granted lands
and as indemnity. promiscuously with other
lands. This seems to have been done IN
pursuance OF the practice OF giving railroad
companies whatever they asked for, ap-
the restrictions and limitations OF the
grants. In that year the title to large
quantity of such lands in the State OF
Kansas, which has been enormously con-
veyed to the Leavenworth, Lawrence u
Galveston Railway Company, was decreed
invalid by the United States Suprem':
Court. Since that date the lands that
were reserved at the date of the grant or
the Date OF definite location OF the roads,
have been regarded and treated in the de-
eisious and practice of this office and de-
partment as excluded not only from all
rra nts but from the indemnity basis under
all grants wherein such reserved lands are
by the terms OF law
''ExCLUDED FROM THE OPERATION
of the acts" The Secretary held in the
Omaha cases that the company was
entitled to indemnity for such lands. This
decision, il adhered to. will have the efiec,
to take from the people many million acret
of land within railroad indemnity limits
! which by your advice and with your NJ
prevail a ox pressed in tho G"'for o'd A'a
| Ter case, have been proclaimed to the conn
| try az res ored to the public domain. 1h'
question of the correctness OF these ce
| cisions beca me therefore matter ol mo
mentous concern. Ii they correctly de
clared the law, these lands belong to th'
railroad companies. II they d'd NOT cor
rec,ly declare the law, the lands belonged
to the people. The Omaha decisions pur
port to be founded upon a decision OF tn
Supreme Court in the case OF the Wlnon'
& St. Peter Railroad Company VS.. Barney
the assertion being made that the 'plal
Ia anpuase" of the court in that case seem
to be .'conclusive of the questions pre-
eented' and also upon certain rule q
statutory Interpretation relied upon
being an axiom Of construction. Sal
d. cisions were further enforced ny reieretc
to an unrepurted decision OF the Unite
States Circuit Court for Wisconsin whlc
was in the Omaha cases to be a
JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION
which seems to leave no further room fo
discussion. 1t occurred to me that the d
cision of the Supreme Court in the barne
ca Sc was absolutely silent upon the que
ton decided in the Omaha cases and tina
, not even the obiter Of the court susta'ne
, these decisions. 1t also appeared to II
that the question at issue was not IN u
case decided by the Circuit Court ior W.
7 consin, and it seemed that the rue {
: statutory Interpretation adopted IN II
! OmHna ca ScS was VIC cPP'oA'S NJ N'A~ -
e of construction adopted by the co1rts al
t laid down by the law writer's. / was theT
Il fore profoundly convinced that the Seer
tary had been committed to errors OF LAY
which, il brought fully to his personal a
tention. might be corrected. 1t ID Il
y practice Of the department to permit repi
G senta tives of railroad companies aEu "th
}, private interests to apply for revie"s al
= reconsiderations of decisions when que
= tions are decided against such interests
= believe that, as an officer OF the Cover
n n ent having the immediate gnardlansh
of lands and immediate charge OF the lss
|ance of patents under all grants OF land,
had
y ATLEAsT AN EQUAL RIGHT
,e with representatives OF private lnteres
y. to ask the Secretary to re-examine a
i. partmental decision and l believed IL
rs pecially proper to express my views
d the Secretary in these cases because n
ID not but would have done so in the or
nal instance if had anticipated a cnal
of ruling and decision upon the polnt
question. Accordingly l personally
dressed to the Secretary my desire
al b bava review OF the decisions in th
o1 cases. He suggested to me to let
Of matter rest for the present, in which
4 gestion chrerfully acquesced. !he lorn
n application for review couched IN m
a, respectful terms was completed ab'
s- October &c but was not made public.
November 10 received note from
Secretary desiring me to present what
had to say upon this subject. NY let
:, was accordingly signed and delivered
III him on the 1lth instant, with the net
or sary change OF date and other correct''
d. that had been made. A copy OF the let
he is herewith enclosed for your inspect
tn Several important questions were decl
oe in the Omaha casesI other than
one referred to herein, but l conhnea
application for review to the question
indemnity for lands excluded from
operation OF the granting acts, t
le' being
'e' OF ovERsHADOw1NG IMPORTANCE.
Of In presenting this aspiration l lntor'
ad the Secretary that it would not be III
is, public unless by himself. Public atten'
having now been called to the matt
shall feel at liberty to furnish the p
with a copy of this letter after it has
les communicated to you and a copy tr'
led ,uitted to him. The issue raised by me
yn. strictly in the line OF legal argument.
the letter addressed to me that 'ssue 10
met. aud the effect has been to create